SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2015] NZSC 97
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicants' fees were unreasonable under s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, and refused leave on other points as they were fact‑specific and did not meet the statutory criteria for leave...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZSC 97
- Parties
- First Applicant: Sportzone Motorcycles Limited (in Liquidation); Second Applicant: Motor Trade Finances Limited; Respondent: Commerce Commission
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 2 July 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Granted on a Limited Question
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court on a limited question; other leave refused
- Legal Topics
- Section 41 CCA Reasonableness of Fees, Leave to Appeal, Statutory Interpretation, Section 94 Loss or Damage
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sportzone Motorcycles Limited (in Liquidation)
First Applicant
Motor Trade Finances Limited
Second Applicant
Commerce Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Granted on a Limited Question
Legal Issues
- 1 Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal had established that debtors suffered loss or damage for the purposes of s 94 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (leave refused)
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicants' fees were unreasonable under s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, and refused leave on other points as they were fact‑specific and did not meet the statutory criteria for leave under the Supreme Court Act 2003.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court on a limited question; other leave refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court granted limited to the question: Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
- Leave refused on other questions including whether debtors suffered loss or damage for the purposes of s 94 and the issue of fees charged by the second applicant and passed on to debtors
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2015] NZSC 97 [2 July 2015]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 40/2015[2015] NZSC 97BETWEEN SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLESLIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)First ApplicantMOTOR TRADE FINANCES LIMITEDSecond ApplicantAND COMMERCE COMMISSIONRespondentCourt: William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJCounsel: D J Goddard QC and I J Thain for ApplicantsS J Mills QC and K C Francis for RespondentJudgment: 2 July 2015JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Leave is granted only on the question set out above. The Court does not consider that the second question on which the applicants sought leave meets thecriteria set out in s 13 Supreme Court Act 2003.1 The point is specific to the facts of the present case and therefore does not give rise to a point of general or public importance or a matter of general commercial significance. We see no appearance of a miscarriage of justice if leave is refused.[2] The grant of leave does not extend to the point raised in para 4.11 of the submissions for the applicants relating to fees charged to the first applicant by the second applicant and passed on by the first applicant to debtors. We do not consider the statutory criteria are met in relation to that issue and the difficulties identified in the Court of Appeal arising from the point not being raised in the High Court would also arise in this Court if leave were granted.Solicitors:DLA Piper, Auckland for ApplicantsMeredith Connell, Wellington for Respondent1 Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that it had been established that the debtors had suffered loss or damage for the purposes of s 94 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.